There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.


 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  5  6  7  8  9  ...  97  98  »» 
#91 | Posted: 10 Oct 2010 09:35 | Edited by: Starseed
The majority of NOAA temperature sensors are sited near air conditioning outlets, car parks, buildings, and other artificial sources of heat.

So when the MET office (spit) put out another global warming 'report' soundbite. THIS IS THE SORT OF THING THAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THESE "REPORTS THAT SAY..."

Which is why Moncktons satellite data is the most reliable...
#92 | Posted: 10 Oct 2010 11:30
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.

New Zealand's government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country's "official" climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.

NIWA's statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service's reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.

According to NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged 'trick' employed by British and American doomsaying scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the 'homogenisation' process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.
#93 | Posted: 11 Oct 2010 16:09 | Edited by: Starseed
10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?

Hey kids, the big day's here. It's 10/10/10 and that if you've been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you'll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.

So what are you going to do today? Here are a few suggestions, inspired Richard Curtis's campaign video which has proved so successful that at least 20,000 10:10 signatories were inspired to resign. Well done Richard!

1. Encourage Daddy to convert his Aston-Martin or Kenneth-Noye style Range Rover to biofuels, like the Prince of Wales has. Biofuels are great for the environment because they lead to higher food prices and starvation in the Third World. And the more people who starve to death in the Third World the better it is for nature. Because remember, overpopulation is the real problem.

2. Kill a climate denier, any denier – they're all the same and their Exxon-funded attempts to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming makes them fit only for one thing. Death. Just like Richard Curtis showed us on his video. And he should know: he wrote Love, Actually.

3. Build a wind turbine in your garden. Never mind the neighbours. Don't worry about planning permission – Uncle Chris Huhne will make sure any local objections are brutally overridden. It's a win win situation. Not only do you get to show how serious you are about your environmentalism – never mind the birds you kill or the views you spoil: the Environment is abut much more than wildlife or aesthetics – but you get paid for by the taxpayer for all the pretend comedy electricity you "generate".

4. Write an inarticulate comment below a blog like this one. Perhaps you can refer readers to the experts at Realclimate – the unbiased information website run by friends of the distinguished, world-renowned inventor of the marvellous Hockey Stick, Michael Mann. Perhaps you could do you bit for the climate wars by reporting every remark that you disagree with to the moderators. Remember, this battle isn't about facts. It's about making sure everyone knows how evil and wrong climate change deniers are. Worthy of death in fact.

5. Hug a polar bear. Go to the arctic circle right now, creep up to the nearest polar bear and hug one. Try it. They're not at all violent. The best ones to go for are the babies, when their mother is nearby. You can tell by how white and innocent and fluffy they look.

Happy 10/10/10 everybody!

For those of you who shared the disgust at the 10:10 video - This is what the video should have looked like...
Ten Ten Classroom Debate

#94 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 01:39
Lots of stuff in side panels. This vid is taken on Tyneside dk
#95 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 15:46 | Edited by: Starseed
Global warming summit heads for failure amid snub by world leaders
World leaders have snubbed the next round of international climate change negotiations in Mexico next month amid fears the talks will collapse.

The last United Nations summit on global warming in Copenhagen, at the end of last year, ended in failure and recrimination. More than 100 heads of state turned up hoping to be part of a deal that would "save the world", but failed to get any legal agreement to stop rising temperatures.

This year, they are declining even to attend, instead sending environment ministers and playing down the talks as much as possible.


"Does anybody have any idea on how many 'journos' and associated hangers-on the BBC will deem it necessary to send for a sunny winter holiday to cover this tallkfest?

Sorry - before I am moderated without explanation or is the PC version

Does anybody have any idea on how many serious journalists and analysts the BBC will deem it necessary to send to cover this crucial meeting that will single handedly save the planet for future generations?"


source: ng-summit-heads-for-failure-amid-snub-by-world-leaders.html
#96 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 16:00 | Edited by: Starseed
Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn

'The true hero of the hour is Professor Lewis for having the courage to stick out his neck and say what so many thousands of other scientists around the world would dearly love to say too: that the global warming industry is a scam and sham.
But they can't because, like all of us, they have to make a living. I'll leave it to a commenter called Scotchman to explain how it works:'

"No surprise here. Don't know if any of you are scientists but climate change is a bit of a standing joke in the science community. Want funding for a study of, say, UK swan populations? Sorry old boy, no money. Well, in that case I would like to conduct a study into the effect of climate change on UK swan populations. Certainly, how much would you like? Trouble is it distorts the research. The scientist's objective is to stay in a job, publish papers and run a research team. Process takes precedent over results, a bit like modern policing and medicine really."

And if you wondered how much money is involved, here is Roman Column to explain:

"The professor wrote: "...the money flood has become the raison d'être ..." Let me present some figures below to see why "flood" was not an exaggeration
"The Money Connection

So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:

- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.

- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.

- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest "commodity" market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it.

And here's a physicist Phillip 2, putting Professor Lewis in context:

"I too had a long career as a physicist and I met Prof Hal Lewis at a conference in 1976 (my career was not as long or as eminent as his). I will never forget the talk he gave after dinner one evening. He spoke for an hour without any notes and was truly inspiring; the room was packed and all there were enthralled. A scientist of honour, honesty and integrity. He is one of the last survivors of the great physicists of the second half of the 20th century.
His words of wisdom should be widely disseminated and heeded. "climate scientists" are not scientists in comparison to him."


I think Realfreedom is right. And the people who ought most especially to take notice are our political class. In Britain, we are stuck with a terrifyingly undemocratic situation in which all three of our main political parties are committed to throwing more and more taxpayers money into the Great Climate Change Lie Machine. When taxpayers finally wise up to what's going on they are going to be very angry indeed. I don't think any of us need kid ourselves any more that "going green" was just an insincere pose David Cameron adopted in order to "detoxify" the Tory brand. Make no mistake, the Eton Grocer is as ideologically committed to the eco-fascist doctrine as Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband or, indeed, his avowed idol Al Gore. [Quote from Dave Cameron, overheard: "I had a meeting the other day with Al Gore: God, he knows his stuff!"]. And perhaps more importantly – as Bloom's film reminds us – it's vital that Dave's father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield makes as much money as possible by building lots of wind turbines on his estates.


It's no coincidence that by far the most popular comment was this one from Cheshirered:

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

Says it all in one paragragh.

Are you listening, Mr Cameron, Mr Huhne, Mr Clegg, et al?
Or perhaps you 'scrupulously honest' politicians deliberately choose not to listen, eh? In which case you're as bad as the rest of 'em who are in on this outrageous racket.


#97 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 16:18
Europe's Ill Wind

Bringing this issue to the general public, successfully bypassing the mainstream media yet again. Wind "farms" are all about subsidies for the manufacturers, most of whom are now not in Europe anymore but rather in China and India. Not a single conventional power station can be shut no matter how many wind "farms" are constructed. Carbon dioxide has NIL effect upon our climate so the sole purpose of these inefficient machines is pointless to start off with.


#98 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 17:22
Ive sent this to someone who works as a scientist in a power Station. Will let you know the comments.

#99 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 17:32 | Edited by: Starseed
Ive sent this to someone who works as a scientist in a power Station. Will let you know the comments.

It`s fact.

Wind FAQ:

1. What are people's objections to windfarms?

People's first objections to wind farms are the despoilment of British natural heritage and fantastic scenery, the noise and nuisance during and after construction and effects on tourism and house prices. However, objectors soon learn that wind farms simply do not work as they are intended. They do not reduce CO2 emissions or provide a reliable electricity on!

2. Do windfarms produce a reliable electricity supply?

No. Wind turbines have rated maximum power outputs, typically 1.8 MW, but because wind is variable, the output of wind turbines also varies according to the wind speed (measured in m/s).[1]

Wind speed
(meters/second) Description Turbine output as
%age of installed capacity

7.5 moderate breeze 26
9.0 fresh breeze 46
10.5 strong breeze 69
15 gale maximum
25 + storm 0 — shutdown

It is claimed that the wind supply will not be interrupted because it is always blowing somewhere, but this is not the case. Often areas of high pressure cover the entire of Western Europe, meaning there is very little or no wind.

3. Do windfarms reduce CO2 emissions?

No. Their construction and manufacture causes CO2 as they are anchored in concrete containing cement, and access roads are needed to transport heavy construction machinery to the site, which is often very remote. On average about 500kg of CO2 are released for every 1000kg of cement.

Furthermore, because wind farms do not produce a reliable supply of power, a constant back up from conventional sources is required, known as 'spinning reserve', meaning that it is constantly burning fuel and emitting CO2. For instance, a coal fired Power Station emits 10.8 tonnes of CO2 per year, per gigawatt-hour of electricity, as balancing partner it still emits 7.8 tonnes of CO2 per year per gigawatt-hour.[3] The wind industry itself admits that 'power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times'.[4] In high winds and with a large wind turbine contribution, sharing becomes unmanageable. In Germany they have to shut down wind turbines in this situation, but official UK Government sources do not reveal this.

4. Doesn't Denmark have a reliable and functioning wind energy network?

No. Although wind power appears on paper to meet 20% of Denmark's electricity, as much as 70% of this is not usable and is sold cheaply or at a loss to neighbouring countries. Because wind is intermittent and unpredictable, wind turbines cannot replace reliable 'base load' generators without destabilizing the grid, and so often produce excess electricity when it isn't needed and cannot be used.

5. So why do people build wind turbines if they don't work?

A system of subsidies (the Renewable Obligation scheme) has been put in place to make them financially viable for investors and wind energy companies. The money comes from your electricity bill. Without the Renewable Obligations system, wind turbine developers would not see a return on their investment. By forcing suppliers to provide electricity from renewable sources, the government guarantee an income for wind power companies.

6. So why is the UK investing so heavily in wind power?

The current and previous governments have failed to plan for the replacement of Britain's ageing energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, a loud global warming lobby have demanded dramatic CO2 reductions, and scare stories have poisoned public opinion against nuclear power. Windfarm developers and environmentalists have convinced the government that wind power can meet the UK's energy demands, and help to reduce CO2, but as we have shown, the potential of windpower to deliver clean, reliable energy has been greatly exaggerated. Instead of responding to criticism of wind, wind power advocates and the government have instead complained about NIMBYism.

7. So what will happen?

If the UK continues with its wind power scheme and subsidies, energy costs will continue to rise. This has even been admitted by the government, although they underestimate by how much.[6] There is also the possibility that in the medium term the national grid will be unable to cope with demand. High energy costs will result in a loss of competitiveness for the UK economy, a loss of jobs, a huge reduction in public and essential services and continuing escalation of prices for all other goods and services.

And there are many sites that say much the same thing. The whole 'wind power' thing is a massive, massive fraud.

#100 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 17:36
sendsing that one as well.
#101 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 17:52
The world's largest wind farm, which opened off the isle coast last week, has been blasted by one of the country's most well-known political mavericks.

The 100-turbine Thanet Offshore Wind Farm was declared open on Thursday by Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

It is claimed the wind farm will generate enough power for some 200,000 homes, but UKIP luminary Nigel Farage called it an "exercise in dishonesty".

The former party leader says the opening of the wind farm is environmentalists' "greatest con to date" and says it cannot generate as much power as is being claimed.

He said: "The figures being pumped out by the Government and the BBC are utter fiction," he said.

"They claim that this £780 million chimera is expected to generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. Well, it is expected only by the dishonest.

"Looking at [operator] Vattenfall's own figures gives a lie to this.

"Wind farms operate on average at about 26 per cent capacity, at best, which in their own world would provide energy for maybe about 130,000 houses. But even this doesn't take into account night usage where the production goes to waste."

Mr Farage, who stood down before the last general election to concentrate on his bid to be an MP, said: "Happily for the company, though, it will be picking up enormous subsidies of £40 million up front and approximately £60m annually in Renewable Obligation Certificates, taken direct from our bills as an undisclosed tax.

"Given that they claim that these bird-slicers will stand for 20 years, they stand to make £1.2 billion – enough to build a small nuclear plant.

"The great scam continues, the Press lap it up and nobody seems to care that the taxpayer is short-changed, the climate is unaffected and Britain will not have the energy-generation capacity vital for our prosperity and welfare.

"Twenty-one so-called green jobs have been created. Possibly the most expensive jobs since Neil Armstrong stood on the moon."
#102 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 17:58

The wind has been knocked out of the sails of the wind farm eco-con, finally exposed as a load of hot air. A sales gimmick to puff up eco-credentials and make a fat profit from taxpayer-funded government subsidies. What's the point of subsidy-guzzling wind farms? ml
#103 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 18:00 | Edited by: Starseed
I am a Consulting Technology Engineer of 35 years experience and I am extremely concerned that the apparent enthusiasm for what can only be described as 'Greenwash' (That's the same as Whitewash but inflicted on us by people who expouse the unquestioning application of the Governments environmental policies)

Lets get one thing clear:
The current spate of proposals for Windfarms in the Southern Leicestershire area has

It has everything to do with lining the pocket of the developers with yours and my tax revenues, courtesy of HM Government.

The first misnomer is the notion that these things are Farms. They are not!
They are HUGE Industrial Wind Factories of appallingly low efficiency.

The second concern is regarding the growing body of evidence that these factories create unacceptable noise and health side effects.
No one has provided a shred of proof that these fears are unfounded.

From what I have researched on the overall subject there are so many unacceptable loose ends that if these Industrial Wind Factories were dependent on their funding by the Banks – without the massive subsidies and guarantees from the British Government (That's YOU & I), then there is no way they would be funded.

I am prepared to bet that if these Industrial Wind Factories are built, they will not remove the need for a single conventional PowerStation.
In 25 years of building Industrial Wind Factories in Germany, I am informed that not a single conventional PowerStation has been shut down.
We are kidding ourselves if we think our situation is going to be any different here.

The wind doesn't blow all the time. In Southern Leicestershire it blows significantly less than elsewhere in the UK – so you can't supply a village or a town from an Industrial Wind Factory alone. You need a conventional PowerStation as well.

I am a supporter of the need for renewable energy schemes but I want to see efficient use of the environment.

Why doesn't the Government make this entire subsidy available to you and I to install Geothermal or Ground heat recovery systems for our houses? This is technology that we know Really Works and that will save us all money and save the planet at the same time.
This would make some kind of sense and not at the same time blight our countryside with HUGE inefficient Wind Factories, which not only blight our environment but also damage the bird, wildlife and insect populations in their wake.

Incidentally, the only realistic low carbon technology for the future of our energy supply is Nuclear!

Although - let us never forget that C02 reduction will change nothing whatsoever.
#104 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 18:05 | Edited by: Starseed
The BBC said that the wind farm off Thanet was "a wonder of our times"

Can I also add a recent Spanish study has shown for every 1 publicly subsidised 'green job' created it destroys 2.3 real jobs in the private sector. This study was so embarrassing to the green con machine even Obamas cronies in the US tried a campaign to trash the study. The entire green fraud is a socialist 'Tax & Control' Ponzi scheme (see Al Gores green business interests)
#105 | Posted: 12 Oct 2010 18:14 | Edited by: Starseed

About Nigel Spence

Nigel Spence, British filmmaker, began his investigative career as an Auditor, Interviewer and Research Analyst. As a Chartered Accountant he is no stranger to money, power and corruption: he spent a decade in Investment Banking in London, including a stint at the infamous Lehman Brothers.

About The Film

Con with the Wind is a passionate and inspirational look at the myths, facts and lies surrounding big business interests in the Wind Farm Goldrush.

Filmmaker and director Nigel Spence's gripping documentary, shot in 15 countries over 3 years, exposes the truth and the real human, environmental and subsidy costs of wind turbines; a cost that the youth of today will be paying for the next 25 years.

Watch the Trailer Now
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  5  6  7  8  9  ...  97  98  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.

Forums are powered by miniBB®